State v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably State v. Outlaw (1990), State v. Seever (1987)
26 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Gilbert v. California · State v. Degraffenreid · Blakney v. Montana · State v. Fleming · State v. Quinn
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n identifying witness may testify concerning his pretrial identification of a suspect.... To the same effect it was stated in State v. Quinn, 594 S.W.2d 599, 603 (Mo. banc 1980) that testimony by the identifying witness “is not improper bolstering and it is not hearsay because it is direct testimony as to a fact about which the witness had personal knowledge. Degraffenreid refused to extend this rationale to testimony of third persons who observed the witness make the pretrial identification, absent prior impeachment of the identifying witness on that issue. ... The underlying concern appears to have been not so much the hearsay quality of the testimony but the fact that it was employed for the purpose of unprovoked bolstering of the identifying witnesses’ testimony.... [[Image here]] Where Degraffenreid type evidence has been allowed, appellate decisions have gone through the formality of finding error, but no reversible error because of the strength of the case against the defendant. In instances where objection to such evidence has been sustained but mistrial refused, deference has been shown the trial court’s exercise of discretion in overruling the motion. Where evidence has been allowed but not objected to, such has typically been deemed not to have constituted plain error. Finally, some cases have distinguished Degraf-fenreid on the thin ground that the officer’s testimony concerning the identification did not specifically state who was identified. Despite the unifo”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hicks · State v. Farmer“The reasons for admitting identification statements as substantive evidence are that out-of-court identifications are believed to be more reliable than those made under the suggestive conditions prevailing at trial, and the availability of the declarant for cross-examination eliminates the major danger of hearsay testimony. * * ⅜ These reasons remain fully applicable when the person who testifies to the statement of identification is not the person who uttered it, so long as the latter also testifies and is available for cross-examindtion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.